There is a surprising story out of Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania that seems the perfect storm of religious tensions. You begin with Ernie Perce, an atheist who marched as a zombie Mohammad in the Mechanicsburg Halloween parade. Then you add Talaag Elbayomy, a Muslim who stepped off a curb and reportedly attacked Perce for insulting the Prophet. Then you have a judge (Judge Mark Martin) who threw out the criminal charges against Elbayomy and ridiculed the victim, Perce. The Judge identifies himself as a Muslim and says that Perce conduct is not what the First Amendment is supposed to protect. [UPDATE: The judge says he is not a Muslim despite what is heard by most listeners on the tape. That being the case, the criticism of the comments remains.] [UPDATE2: Perce has responded to our blog and denied many of the factual representations made by Judge Martin].
Perce is the American Atheists’ Pennsylvania State Director and marched with other atheists, including one dressed as a creepy Pope. Here is the tape of the incident:
Perce says that Elbayomy grabbed him and tried to take his sign. Elbayomy was at the parade with his wife and children and said that he felt he had to act in the face of the insult. The officer at the scene, Sgt. Brian Curtis, correctly concluded that Perce was engaged in a lawful, first amendment activity. He therefore charged Elbayomy. While it looks like an assault, he was only charged with harassment.
The case, however, then went to District Judge Mark Martin who not only threw out the charge of harassment but ridiculed Perce as a “doofus.” He also proceeds to not only give an account of his own feelings (and say that he was offended personally by Perce’s action) but suggests that Elbayomy was just protecting his “culture.” The judge not only points to the Koran in the courtroom but his time in Muslim countries as relevant to his deliberations. Putting aside the problem of ruling in a case where you admit you have strong personal feelings, the lecture given on the first amendment is perfectly grotesque from a civil liberties perspective.
Here is part of the hearing transcript:
Well, having had the benefit of having spent over two-and-a-half years in predominantly Muslim countries, I think I know a little bit about the faith of Islam. In fact, I have a copy of the Quran here, and I would challenge you, Sir, to show me where it says in the Quran that Muhammad arose and walked among the dead. I think you misinterpreted a couple of things. So before you start mocking somebody else’s religion, you might want to find out a little more about it. It kind of makes you look like a doofus. …
In many other Muslim-speaking countries, err, excuse me, many Arabic-speaking countries, predominantly Muslim, something like this is definitely against the law there, in their society. In fact, it could be punished by death, and frequently is, in their society.
Here in our society, we have a Constitution that gives us many rights, specifically First Amendment rights. It’s unfortunate that some people use the First Amendment to deliberately provoke others. I don’t think that’s what our forefathers intended. I think our forefathers intended to use the First Amendment so we can speak with our mind, not to piss off other people and cultures – which is what you did.
I don’t think you’re aware, Sir, there’s a big difference between how Americans practice Christianity – I understand you’re an atheist – but see Islam is not just a religion. It’s their culture, their culture, their very essence, their very being. They pray five times a day toward Mecca. To be a good Muslim before you die, you have to make a pilgrimage to Mecca, unless you’re otherwise told you cannot because you’re too ill, too elderly, whatever, but you must make the attempt. Their greeting is ‘Salam alaikum, wa-laikum as-Salam,’ uh, ‘May God be with you.’
Whenever it is very common, their language, when they’re speaking to each other, it’s very common for them to say, uh, Allah willing, this will happen. It’s, they’re so immersed in it. And what you’ve done is, you’ve completely trashed their essence, their being. They find it very, very, very offensive. I’m a Muslim. I find it offensive. I find what’s on the other side of this [sign] very offensive. But you have that right, but you are way outside your bounds of First Amendment rights. …
I’ve spent about seven years living in other countries. When we go to other countries, it’s not uncommon for people to refer to us as ‘ugly Americans.’ This is why we hear it referred to as ‘ugly Americans,’ because we’re so concerned about our own rights, we don’t care about other people’s rights. As long as we get our say, but we don’t care about the other people’s say.
The judge’s distorted view of the first amendment was magnified by Elbayomy’s counsel, R. Mark Thomas who called this lecture “a good dressing down by the judge. The so-called victim was the antagonist and we introduced evidence that clearly showed his attitude toward Muslims. The judge didn’t do anything I wouldn’t have done if I was in that position.”
I fail to see the relevance of the victim’s attitude toward Muslims or religion generally. He had a protected right to walk in the parade and not be assaulted for his views. While the judge laments that “[i]t’s unfortunate that some people use the First Amendment to deliberately provoke others,” that is precisely what the Framers had in mind if Thomas Paine is any measure.
Notably, reports indicate that Elbayomy called police because he thought it was a crime to be disrespectful to Muhammed. The judge appears to reference this by noting that in some countries you can be put to death for such an offense. Those countries are called oppressive countries. This is a free country where it is not a crime to insult someone’s religion — despite a counter-trend in some Western countries.
I also do not see how the judge believes that he has the authority to tell a religious critic that “before you start mocking somebody else’s religion, you might want to find out a little more about it.” Let alone call a person a “doofus” because he opposes religion.
To make matters worse, the judge is reportedly threatening Perce with contempt for posting the audio of the hearing.
The reference to the cultural motivations for assaulting Perce seems to raise a type of cultural defense. I have spent years discussing this issue with state and federal judges on the proper role of culture in criminal and civil cases. This is not a case where I would view that defense as properly raised. There are certainly constitutional (and yes cultural) norms that must be accepted when joining this Republic. One is a commitment to free speech. If culture could trump free speech, the country would become the amalgamation of all extrinsic cultures — protecting no one by protecting everyone’s impulses. Those countries referenced by the court took a different path — a path away from civil liberties and toward religious orthodoxy. It is a poor example to raise except as an example of what we are not. The fact that this man may have formed his views in such an oppressive environment does not excuse his forcing others to adhere to his religious sentiments.
Martin’s comments also heighten concerns over the growing trend toward criminalizing anti-religious speech in the use of such standards as the Brandenburg test, a position supported by the Obama Administration.
There are legitimate uses of the culture defense. However, when it comes to free speech, that is not just our controlling constitutional right but the touchstone of our culture.
I can understand the judge’s claims of conflicting testimony on the crime –though it seems to be that the officer’s testimony and the tape would resolve those doubts. However, I view this as an extremely troubling case that raises serious questions of judicial temperament, if not misconduct.
Source: ABC
I also see that this ignorant judge never read the book, The Ugly American. The ugly American was the GOOD GUY by the way. Incredible that he is on any bench or considers himself a literate man.
I don’t know where Martin got his version of the judges defense, but on the tape and transcript the judge clearly state he is a Muslim. So the judge is simply lying and he clearly disregarded the testimony of the cop who said the Muslim man DID have physical contact with the atheist and admitted it to him. So the judge held that the victim and the cop were lying, and an agitated outraged Muslim man did not attack the guy. If you can believe that one, I have a bridge in Brookly for sale.
I know that the Muslim guy cannot be tried again, but I think that a felony charge of perjury is easily pursued since the guy lied about his physical contact with the atheist and there is a video tape and the cops testimony to back it up. It would be a good education for this immigrant, and we can get rid of him if he is convicted and deport him after he gets out of prison. WE do NOT need such immigrants in this country. He can return to wherever he came from and call the cops to jail blasphemers when he sees them.
This judge needs to be gone ASAP.
Hate motivated atheists? Really? You are another poster child for what’s wrong with religion. I am an atheist in every sense of the word. But it’s not hatred of religion that drives my beliefs, or lack thereof. It is fear. Quite frankly religion scares the hell out of me and I despair for my children. Here are countless numbers of people that cannot be reasoned with, and are seemingly willing to believe whatever is told them provided it fits within their carefully constructed framework of reality. Sure, there are religious practitioners willing to listen to arguments and apply reason to their own. But sadly, these are the statistically insignificant few. In the end, it’s the slack jawed masses that rule the day. Someone said that one of two things will happen first, the end of religion or the end of the human race. Let’s just say it’s not looking good for us. This idiot judge is not the first, nor will he be the last to try to apply religious beliefs to matters of state. It will only get worse, far worse, before it ever gets better (if we make it that long). Some of you will think this is a problem only because he was not applying the correct religious beliefs. If only he applied some good old Christian sense to the case it would be much more just. But be honest now, the first time a judge tells you you’re guilty because God wills it, do you really think you’ll care which one?
Excellent comments! We are really on a slippery slope when in America any judge can get away with justifying and excusing religious fanaticism or even worse censuring the victim. The “religious right” have been slowly taking over the Republican Party for the past 30 years. How much longer will it be before they are the ones in control and their interpretations of “God’s law” are applied to our society? It seems that we are approaching that very thing, and quite quickly too.
everyone is being little bitches
“oh wahhh the judge called him doofus boohoo” the guy should gotten his ass kicked for being a douche trying rile people for no good reason
While I don’t support violence as a reponse to insults, but I agree with the judge that the nihilist shouldn’t be protected by the first amendment here. Pray tell, what sophisticated and no doubt enlightened point could he be trying to make? I think the Muslim should get time for assault, and the nihilist should get time for conspiracy to incite a riot.
The citation was for harassment, not assault. The judges reasoning for dismissing this we must guess at, but a lack of continuum of behavior must be suspected. The assertion that he applied Sharia Law in that is unsupported.
He lectured the doofus about his behavior doesn’t seem out of line to me. There are limitations on freedom of speech. “Fighting words” and inciting a riot. At minimum, the man deserves to be informed that his actions might cause him trouble.
BTW, somebody cited Logan’s Warning as a source of their information. Curious about what that was, I googled it, and got this:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=logan%27s%20warning
Ha!
It would be nice to know how to fire this judge. Is not calling the victim a “doofus” in court the same thing as defamation of character? The judge is supposed to uphold US law, not the law of his religion. Would he not cry foul, and maybe even get rioting started if a judge of the Christian beliefs did to a muslim what he has done to this atheist? (yes, I did not capitalize “muslim” on purpose)
If the judge is such a devout believer such as to put sharia law before American law, I wonder, does he hold to all of the teachings of his prophet? If so, does he have as many wives as the prophet did, and of the same ages at marriage as the prophet had? Look it up, readers, you might find it interesting to know the age of one of his wives. While this religion does not do this anymore, the question arises, on whose authority? What influence came from where to change all of this? Might it be that the change came as a result of British influence in the region? If the laws of the religion are so changeable, then how does one know they are doing the right thing at any given time? So far as the prophets marriages, one source, which used the history of the religion, has held by the religion, is from a book, “Unveiling Islam”, which was written by 2 Pakistani brothers, who were raised in the religion.
Folks, it isn’t the peaceful religion that people think it is, and the judge needs to find a different job.
The judge involved has written: “This story certainly has legs. As you might imagine, the public is only getting the version of the story put out by the “victim” (the atheist). Many, many gross misrepresentations. Among them: I’m a Muslim, and that’s why I dismissed the harassment charge (Fact: if anyone cares, I’m actually Lutheran, and have been for at least 41 years).
I also supposedly called him and threatened to throw him in jail if he released the tapes he had made in the courtroom without my knowledge/permission (Fact: HE called ME and told me that he was ready to “go public” with the tapes and was wondering what the consequences would be; I advised him again to not disseminate the recording, and that I would consider contempt charges; he then replied that he was “willing to go to jail for (his) 1st amendment rights”- I never even uttered the word “jail” in that conversation).
He said that I kept a copy of the Quran on the bench (fact: I keep a Bible on the bench, but out of respect to people with faiths other than Christianity, I DO have a Quran on the bookcase BESIDE my bench, and am trying to acquire a Torah, Book of Mormon, Book of Confucius and any other artifacts which those with a faith might respect).
He claims that I’m biased towards Islam, apparently because he thinks I’m Muslim. In fact, those of you who know me, know that I’m an Army reservist with 27 years of service towards our country (and still serving). I’ve done one tour in Afghanistan, and two tours in Iraq, and am scheduled to return to Afghanistan for a year this summer. During my first tour in Iraq, I was ambushed once, attacked by a mob once, sniped at once, and rocketed, bombed, and mortared so many times that I honestly don’t know how many time I’ve been attacked. Presumably by Muslim insurgents. My point: if anyone SHOULD be biased towards Muslims, one would think it would be me. I’m not, however, because I personally know or have met many good, decent people who follow Islam, and I shouldn’t characterize the actions of those who tried to kill me as characterizations of all Muslims.
When I asked him why he dressed up as “Muhammad zombie,” he told me that it was because he was reflecting the Muslim belief that Muhammad rose from the dead, walked as a zombie, and then went to heaven. That was one of the reasons I tried to spend 6 whole minutes trying to explain and de-mystify Islam through my own knowledge, and in an attempt to prevent an incident like this recurring in my community. Unfortunately, the message was obviously not received in the vein that I had intended. And, in the interest of full disclosure, I did use the word “doofus,” but didn’t call him that directly; I said something akin to “ if you’re going to mock another religion or culture, you should check your facts, first- otherwise, you’ll look like a doofus.”;
In short, I based my decision on the fact that the Commonwealth failed to prove to me beyond a reasonable doubt that the charge was just; I didn’t doubt that an incident occurred, but I was basically presented only with the victim’s version, the defendant’s version, and a very intact Styrofoam sign that the victim was wearing and claimed that the defendant had used to choke him. There so many inconsistencies, that there was no way that I was going to find the defendant guilty.
A lesson learned here: there’s a very good reason for Rule 112 of Rules of Criminal Procedure- if someone makes an unauthorized recording in a Court not of Record, there’s no way to control how it might be manipulated later, and then passed off as the truth. We’ve received dozens upon dozens of phone calls, faxes, and e-mails. There are literally hundreds of not-so-nice posts all over the internet on at least 4 sites that have carried this story, mainly because I’ve been painted as a Muslim judge who didn’t recuse himself, and who’s trying to introduce Sharia law into Mechanicsburg.”
I am not related in any way to this judge.
That’s what’s being reported, but I have strong doubts that it was actually written by the judge. In the audio recording, which is available on YouTube, he clearly and unequivocally states “I am a Muslim.”
Do these so called “atheists” actually parade around united through uncertainty haha
Most atheists I’ve ever talked to when they alone aren’t really atheist at all
The are agnostic
They just try to be cool in front of religious people
They say religions start wars because of beliefs but atheist sure go looking for it very often when there supposed lack of beliefs are offended
Did it ever occur Judge Mark Martin that this was a case where he maybe should have recused himself? He seems to have put his religion before the law. Would this judge have ruled the same if Talaag Elbayomy had stabbed, shot, or beheaded Ernie Perce for “insulting” the Prophet? Where does Judge Martin draw the line?
The reality is Mohammed, Allah, Yahweh, Jesus Christ, or God Almighty does not need Mr. Elbayomy, me, you, or anyone else to defend His honor.
This insane compulsion about needing to rise up in violence whenever a Koran is burned, or an image of the Mohammed the Prophet is displayed, pales in comparison with the indiscriminate bombings, burnings, and shootings carried out by Muslim fanatics against innocent civilians… most of whom are Muslims themselves. The treatment of women and girls, by radical Muslims, has no place in a civilized society.
For those of us who are not Muslim, we have seen — by the example of fervent followers of this faith — that this cannot be a religion derived from the teachings of any god.
Nal,
Thanks for the updates….
If it is suddenly illegal to protest or disagree with a religion then that immediately makes anyone that reports on Catholic priest molesting kids, or condemning the Inquisitions and political manipulations a criminal. It starts with letting a Muslim criminal go free and censuring the atheist, but soon begins to effect everyone.
everyone’s focusing on the judge
yeah he was wrong
but these people are douche bags
so these so called Atheist are uniting to form a band of uncertainty to parade the streets just make fun of religions?
they say religions start wars but obviously atheist go out looking for wars as well
south park anyone?
Very very worrisome. What is being done about this? Why isn’t the ACLU stepping in to appeal? The first amendment is the cornerstone of freedom in the USA…to rule has he did is a travesty.
“Zombie Mohammed” Judge Responds
This story certainly has legs. As you might imagine, the public is only getting the version of the story put out by the “victim” (the atheist). Many, many gross misrepresentations. Among them: I’m a Muslim, and that’s why I dismissed the harassment charge (Fact: if anyone cares, I’m actually Lutheran, and have been for at least 41 years).
Interesting if really from the judge.
The memeplexes are frakin. This was the whole point of Ridicule D’Prophet. The judge is too infected with his own mind virus to protect the container in which these nonsense memeplexes are supposed to be allowwd to exist.